I got Nikon D800 and am getting familiar with it. I have now one problem which I could not solve by reading the manual: When I press the shutter button half way a small square indicator shows up on the viewfinder. It was once located in the center but now it is away toward the left side. Could anyone know how to control the location of the focal point indicator?

The d-pad on the back of the d800, to the right of the screen, moves the focus indicator around. This is on page 96 of the manual. Knowing this is kinda 'Nikon photography 101' and you might want to take an introductory photography course to learn how the basic functions of a DSLR. The D800 is a particularly fine tuned camera and is unforgiving in the hands of even expert photographers. It's probably not the best camera for a newb. That said, it is quite simply, the best photographic device money can buy and takes incredible pictures in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

Plazmodeus wrote:Knowing this is kinda 'Nikon photography 101' and you might want to take an introductory photography course to learn how the basic functions of a DSLR.

This might be just a bit harsh. It can be a bit tricky switching between bodies or brands. Shoot, it took just such a post for me to figure out that I could had to turn off tracking focus in order to move between AF points in local mode on my a65. Its a learning curve.

The d-pad on the back of the d800, to the right of the screen, moves the focus indicator around. This is on page 96 of the manual. Knowing this is kinda 'Nikon photography 101' and you might want to take an introductory photography course to learn how the basic functions of a DSLR. The D800 is a particularly fine tuned camera and is unforgiving in the hands of even expert photographers. It's probably not the best camera for a newb. That said, it is quite simply, the best photographic device money can buy and takes incredible pictures in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

Well it was until the a7R came along. And even then there are MF cameras that blow these away.

The d-pad on the back of the d800, to the right of the screen, moves the focus indicator around. This is on page 96 of the manual. Knowing this is kinda 'Nikon photography 101' and you might want to take an introductory photography course to learn how the basic functions of a DSLR. The D800 is a particularly fine tuned camera and is unforgiving in the hands of even expert photographers. It's probably not the best camera for a newb. That said, it is quite simply, the best photographic device money can buy and takes incredible pictures in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

Well it was until the a7R came along. And even then there are MF cameras that blow these away.

Well according to dx0, the gold standard of camera reviews, the a7r is practically identical to the D800. However there is an old saying amongst photographers; amateurs buy camera bodies, pro's buy lenses. And that is where the a7r is WAY behind the d800. Nikon lenses are amazing. There is not a fraction of the same quality of native glass for the a7r. Once you start using adapters you lose much functionality, and then you might as well be using a d800. Having shot with the d800 since it first came out, it really requires good lenses to get good results from it.

They are a website that reviews and tests equipment. They have secret methodology and it has some oddities to it. And sometimes, they are plain wrong. One example is that when they reviewed Sony's ISO 50, they claim a higher dynamic range. This is contrary to what Sony themselves state. Even in my own use, ISO 50 is essentially ISO 100 that is underexposed a stop. And it actually has less dynam range. Dxo needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Compare them to dpreview, pop photography, and a couple of good users (I really like Steve Huff, avoid Ken Rockwell) and determine if the qualities of the equipment are right for you.

If dxo simply were transparent with their methodology, it would be a huge step towards improving their overall system. If TR did that, I really wouldn't be here. If a test isn't repeatable, it isn't valid.

Plazmodeus wrote:Well according to dx0, the gold standard of camera reviews, the a7r is practically identical to the D800. However there is an old saying amongst photographers; amateurs buy camera bodies, pro's buy lenses. And that is where the a7r is WAY behind the d800. Nikon lenses are amazing. There is not a fraction of the same quality of native glass for the a7r. Once you start using adapters you lose much functionality, and then you might as well be using a d800. Having shot with the d800 since it first came out, it really requires good lenses to get good results from it.

I thought one of the main reasons people were so hyped about the a7r were the lens adapters which basically means it's compatible with a full complement of lenses.Literally everything from Sony and Minolota's A-mount and Maxxum lenses via the LE-E4 adapter, Canon and Nikon via the Metabones EF and F adapters, and Leica via the Novoflex adaptor will work the a7r.

There are occasions where Canon's lenses are better than Nikon's, and Leica is often better than both when available. The a7r gets to pick from whichever lens is best at any given focal length.If lens selection means anything, the a7r is way ahead of every other camera right now. Even the Leica devotees are retiring their M-bodies since they can now use their beloved lenses with something that has a modern sensor.

I am relatively new to DSLR as my original post indicates, and do not know much about DxO. Could you provide what the above mean or something I should be aware of when I read their review article?

DxO - www.dxomark.com - provides some interesting software, but they really made their mark by testing camera sensors. Testing lenses is tougher than sensors, though. If you'd like to read about various lenses, check out photozone.de, lenstip.com, slrgear.com, and photo-oriented websites where folks who have actual experience making images talk about lenses.

TheEmrys wrote:They are a website that reviews and tests equipment. They have secret methodology and it has some oddities to it. And sometimes, they are plain wrong. One example is that when they reviewed Sony's ISO 50, they claim a higher dynamic range. This is contrary to what Sony themselves state. Even in my own use, ISO 50 is essentially ISO 100 that is underexposed a stop. And it actually has less dynam range. Dxo needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Compare them to dpreview, pop photography, and a couple of good users (I really like Steve Huff, avoid Ken Rockwell) and determine if the qualities of the equipment are right for you.

If dxo simply were transparent with their methodology, it would be a huge step towards improving their overall system. If TR did that, I really wouldn't be here. If a test isn't repeatable, it isn't valid.

I like that Steve Huff is generally enthusiastic about camera gear - that's as it should be, because gear helps create possibilities. Ken Rockwell's a bit of a nut - I think of him as the Bill Walton of camera reviewers - but every once in a while there's a nugget hidden in his craziness.

Kirk Tuck, The Online Photographer and Luminous Landscapes are other sites I enjoy reading.

jihadjoe wrote: I thought one of the main reasons people were so hyped about the a7r were the lens adapters which basically means it's compatible with a full complement of lenses. Canon and Nikon via the Metabones EF and F adapters will work the a7r.

B&H's product page wrote: Only Canon-branded lenses introduced in or after 2006 are officially supported. Autofocus speed is very slow and inadequate for most moving subjects. Autofocus may be disabled for older Canon lenses and most third-party lenses, including most Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses and all Contax N lenses modified by Conurus.

A programmer friend of mine was excited to show me an emulator long ago. When I commented that it ran slowly, he told me that "It's not how fast the bear dances, it's that the bear dances at all that's astounding."

The d-pad on the back of the d800, to the right of the screen, moves the focus indicator around. This is on page 96 of the manual. Knowing this is kinda 'Nikon photography 101' and you might want to take an introductory photography course to learn how the basic functions of a DSLR. The D800 is a particularly fine tuned camera and is unforgiving in the hands of even expert photographers. It's probably not the best camera for a newb. That said, it is quite simply, the best photographic device money can buy and takes incredible pictures in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

Well it was until the a7R came along. And even then there are MF cameras that blow these away.

Well according to dx0, the gold standard of camera reviews, the a7r is practically identical to the D800. However there is an old saying amongst photographers; amateurs buy camera bodies, pro's buy lenses. And that is where the a7r is WAY behind the d800. Nikon lenses are amazing. There is not a fraction of the same quality of native glass for the a7r. Once you start using adapters you lose much functionality, and then you might as well be using a d800. Having shot with the d800 since it first came out, it really requires good lenses to get good results from it.

You have not been paying attention. The Zeiss FE 55 1.8 is as good as the Otus at reasonable apertures. There are no Nikon lenses that good. My Zeiss FE 35 2.8 is perhaps not as quite as good, but still very fine. My Leica Elmar 135 4 from the 60s is as good as anything Nikon ever made. I having now used a Leica lens, have been made to understand that the hype about them is not. Leica and Zeiss make the best lenses in the world, not Nikon, although they make some very fine ones.

The camera is not made for speed. I will shoot mine manual focus pretty well all the time, on it's tripod..

PenGun wrote: You have not been paying attention. The Zeiss FE 55 1.8 is as good as the Otus at reasonable apertures. There are no Nikon lenses that good. My Zeiss FE 35 2.8 is perhaps not as quite as good, but still very fine. My Leica Elmar 135 4 from the 60s is as good as anything Nikon ever made. I having now used a Leica lens, have been made to understand that the hype about them is not. Leica and Zeiss make the best lenses in the world, not Nikon, although they make some very fine ones.

The camera is not made for speed. I will shoot mine manual focus pretty well all the time, on it's tripod..

I had the Elmar 135/4 and it was fab, but got killed by fungus. I had the Zeiss Sonnar 85/2, then got the Russian copy, the Jupiter-9. The Jupiter was a bit softer wide open than the Zeiss - but really quite pleasant - and they equalized by f/3.5 or so. Sold the Zeiss, pocketed the cash.

What's funny is that compared with the Leica, Jupiter/Zeiss and some of my Taks, most modern lenses seem somehow less refined in rendition.

PenGun wrote:The camera is not made for speed. I will shoot mine manual focus pretty well all the time, on it's tripod..

And many of us here want the speed for handheld and/or low light. Your old Leicas are great lenses, just not when the subject is moving.

I shoot much wildlife MF. Like anything else, it takes practice.

Of course, I've been shooting primarily Pentax for the last 7 years, so I'm used to sucky AF!

We'd have to wonder how anyone got good wildlife shots before decent AF systems appeared....

And I sorely wish Pentax would get on the ball with a full-frame system and 35mm lenses that can keep up with their 645 lenses. The new K-3 won DSLR of the year at DPReview, but tests with their current lineup of lenses using the Sony 24MP sensor show Pentax sorely trailing the big five lens houses while their selection makes Sony look good.

Don't get me wrong. If I were shooting indoors with tons of light and static subjects I'd plotz all over Leica lenses. When I actually take the time to charge the battery and check for firmware updates I'm still usually shooting things that move (slowly if it's the 16YO daughter).

Horses for courses. For what PenGun is shooting those old Leicas are dynamite. For me, not so much.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

PenGun wrote: You have not been paying attention. The Zeiss FE 55 1.8 is as good as the Otus at reasonable apertures. There are no Nikon lenses that good. My Zeiss FE 35 2.8 is perhaps not as quite as good, but still very fine. My Leica Elmar 135 4 from the 60s is as good as anything Nikon ever made. I having now used a Leica lens, have been made to understand that the hype about them is not. Leica and Zeiss make the best lenses in the world, not Nikon, although they make some very fine ones.

The camera is not made for speed. I will shoot mine manual focus pretty well all the time, on it's tripod..

I had the Elmar 135/4 and it was fab, but got killed by fungus. I had the Zeiss Sonnar 85/2, then got the Russian copy, the Jupiter-9. The Jupiter was a bit softer wide open than the Zeiss - but really quite pleasant - and they equalized by f/3.5 or so. Sold the Zeiss, pocketed the cash.

What's funny is that compared with the Leica, Jupiter/Zeiss and some of my Taks, most modern lenses seem somehow less refined in rendition.

My 135 4 is still clean, I guess it was kept pretty well. I'm looking at a Leica 90 2.8 Elmarit for my short long, some are almost reasonable and the Zeiss 55 1.8, that with my Zeiss 35 2.8 would make a good set, except for real wide.

The images my Leica 135 4 produces are full of life and colour, I guess the legendary 3D thing is part of what makes them so full of life, I can't think of a better word. My Fuji lenses are exceptional but even my wonderful 60 2.4, although as sharp, is not so ... I dunno, amazing.

Airmantharp wrote:And I sorely wish Pentax would get on the ball with a full-frame system and 35mm lenses that can keep up with their 645 lenses. The new K-3 won DSLR of the year at DPReview, but tests with their current lineup of lenses using the Sony 24MP sensor show Pentax sorely trailing the big five lens houses while their selection makes Sony look good.

But man can they make a camera body.

The lens selection is what the lens selection is. If you want small, high-quality primes and the best legacy glass support going, go Pentax. If you want inexpensive all-weather gear, go Pentax. If those specific niches aren't your tipple, if you are a gear-hound or measurebator, go someplace else. I've seldom recommended Pentax to people, because it's not a well-rounded system in the modern context.

I don't believe any well-regarded lens-review site* has measured the Pentax glass on the 24MP sensor, but I could be wrong as I'm not obsessed with numbers.

*Don't say DxOMark, their "Camera Lens Ratings" are the laughingstock of the photographic community.

As far as FF... eh, whatever. I realize it's the in-thing and all that, and that's why people want it, not necessarily because they want to work at becoming good photographers. Further development on Medium Format would be more interesting. The difference between MF and FF is greater than that between FF and APS-C.

Airmantharp wrote:And I sorely wish Pentax would get on the ball with a full-frame system and 35mm lenses that can keep up with their 645 lenses. The new K-3 won DSLR of the year at DPReview, but tests with their current lineup of lenses using the Sony 24MP sensor show Pentax sorely trailing the big five lens houses while their selection makes Sony look good.

But man can they make a camera body.

The lens selection is what the lens selection is. If you want small, high-quality primes and the best legacy glass support going, go Pentax. If you want inexpensive all-weather gear, go Pentax. If those specific niches aren't your tipple, if you are a gear-hound or measurebator, go someplace else. I've seldom recommended Pentax to people, because it's not a well-rounded system in the modern context.

I don't believe any well-regarded lens-review site* has measured the Pentax glass on the 24MP sensor, but I could be wrong as I'm not obsessed with numbers.

*Don't say DxOMark, their "Camera Lens Ratings" are the laughingstock of the photographic community.

As far as FF... eh, whatever. I realize it's the in-thing and all that, and that's why people want it, not necessarily because they want to work at becoming good photographers. Further development on Medium Format would be more interesting. The difference between MF and FF is greater than that between FF and APS-C.

I dunno. It's been shown the D800 is right there in IQ with several MF cameras. The R2 and Pentax were in that little test.

Now that was D0X so take it how you will.

For what I do the a7R was made for, and the nice lenses are what I need.

PenGun wrote: My 135 4 is still clean, I guess it was kept pretty well. I'm looking at a Leica 90 2.8 Elmarit for my short long, some are almost reasonable and the Zeiss 55 1.8, that with my Zeiss 35 2.8 would make a good set, except for real wide.

The images my Leica 135 4 produces are full of life and colour, I guess the legendary 3D thing is part of what makes them so full of life, I can't think of a better word. My Fuji lenses are exceptional but even my wonderful 60 2.4, although as sharp, is not so ... I dunno, amazing.

I'm envious... but just a little bit. I'm not even as good as the lenses I already have.

Jun Hirakawa, who designed the Pentax FA Limited lenses, had said that those lenses were designed specifically to produce lively images with a great sense of depth, not to set sharpness records (although they are sharp lenses). I understand the need for "clinically sharp" lenses, but it's not a bad thing to also have lenses made for creating photos of things other than brick walls.